Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/24/2001 01:17 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2001
1:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Supporting the application of Alaska Airlines to provide air
service to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
- MOVED HJR 28 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to
establishment of a metropolitan planning organization for the
Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED SB 88 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 123(FIN)
"An Act relating to the program of federally funded construction
projects of the Alaska Railroad Corporation."
- MOVED CSSB 123(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of
the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska
Railroad to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada."
- MOVED HB 241 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 28
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA AIRLINES SERVICE TO WASHINGTON DC
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/19/01 1068 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/19/01 1068 (H) TRA
04/24/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 88
SHORT TITLE:METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/01 0356 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/01 0356 (S) TRA, CRA, FIN
02/20/01 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/20/01 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/21/01 0451 (S) TRA RPT 3DP 1DNP 1AM
02/21/01 0451 (S) DP: COWDERY, WARD, WILKEN;
DNP: ELTON;
02/21/01 0451 (S) AM: TAYLOR
02/21/01 0451 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/07/01 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/07/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/07/01 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/09/01 0596 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 1NR
03/09/01 0596 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PHILLIPS; NR:
AUSTERMAN
03/09/01 0596 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/22/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/26/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/01 0819 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 2DNP 2NR
03/27/01 0819 (S) DP: DONLEY, GREEN, LEMAN;
03/27/01 0819 (S) NR: KELLY, WILKEN; DNP:
HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/27/01 0819 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
04/04/01 0933 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 4/4/01
04/04/01 0943 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/04/01 0944 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/04/01 0944 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 88
04/04/01 0944 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 E1
04/04/01 0944 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/04/01 0944 (S) OLSON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/04/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/04/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/05/01 0960 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
04/05/01 0961 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12
N7 E1
04/05/01 0961 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) Y19 N- E1
04/05/01 0962 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/05/01 0962 (S) VERSION: SB 88
04/06/01 0875 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/06/01 0875 (H) TRA, CRA
04/17/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/17/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/19/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/19/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
04/24/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 123
SHORT TITLE:FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS OF RAILROAD
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/01/01 0557 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/01/01 0557 (S) TRA, FIN
03/22/01 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/01 (S) Moved CS(TRA) Out of
Committee
03/22/01 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/23/01 0783 (S) TRA RPT CS 1DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/23/01 0783 (S) DP: COWDERY; NR: TAYLOR,
ELTON
03/23/01 0783 (S) FN1: ZERO(CED)
03/28/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/28/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/05/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/12/01 1091 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR NEW TITLE
04/12/01 1091 (S) DP: KELLY, AUSTERMAN, LEMAN;
NR: GREEN,
04/12/01 1091 (S) WILKEN, OLSON, WARD
04/12/01 1091 (S) FN1: ZERO(CED)
04/12/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/12/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/12/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/17/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/18/01 1162 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/01
04/18/01 1163 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/01 1163 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/18/01 1163 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/18/01 1164 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
123(FIN)
04/18/01 1164 (S) AM NO 1 (TITLE AM) ADOPTED
UNAN CONSENT
04/18/01 1164 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
04/18/01 1164 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/18/01 1182 (S) VERSION: CSSB 123(FIN)
04/18/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/18/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/19/01 1181 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
04/19/01 1181 (S) RESCIND ACTION ADOPTING AM 1
Y17 N2 E1
04/19/01 1181 (S) AM NO 1 (TITLE AM) WITHDRAWN
04/19/01 1182 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15
N4 E1
04/19/01 1182 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/20/01 1082 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/20/01 1082 (H) TRA, FIN
04/24/01 1182 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/24/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE:RAIL AND UTILITY CORRIDOR TO CANADA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/10/01 0929 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/10/01 0929 (H) TRA, RES
04/24/01 1181 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE,
KOHRING, SCALZI,
04/24/01 1181 (H) WILSON
04/24/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
DENISE HENDERSON, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 28 on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor.
KIM HUTCHINSON (ph)
Alaska Airlines
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 88.
KRISTY TIBBLES, Staff
to Senator Drue Pearce
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Pearce,
sponsor of SB 123.
JOSEPH FIELDS
Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce
Transportation Committee
PO Box 71047
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 123.
WENDY LINDSKOOG
Alaska Railroad Corporation
PO Box 107500
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 123.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 123.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 123.
SENATOR DRUE PEARCE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 123.
EILEEN REILLY
Alaska Railroad Corporation
6210 West Tree Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 123.
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
James, sponsor of HB 241.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR VIC KOHRING called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:17 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Kohring, Scalzi, Wilson,
Masek, and Kookesh.
HJR 28-ALASKA AIRLINES SERVICE TO WASHINGTON DC
CHAIR KOHRING announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28, Supporting the application of
Alaska Airlines to provide air service to Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport.
Number 0096
DENISE HENDERSON, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska
State Legislature, came forth to present HJR 28 on behalf of the
House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor. She explained that HJR
28 asks the Alaska State Legislature to support Alaska Airlines
in securing a slot at the Ronald Reagan Airport in Washington,
D.C., in order to provide service from Anchorage.
CHAIR KOHRING asked whether the federal Department of
Transportation has control as far as doling out gates at
national airports.
MS. HENDERSON answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR KOHRING asked why the state should request that preference
be given to a certain business as opposed to opening the airport
up for other carriers as well.
MS. HENDERSON responded that on April 5, 2000, Congress enacted
the William H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act, which
stated that new entrance carriers and carriers serving the
smaller and medium-sized cities should be given allocation
preference. At that time there were 12 open slots. This Act is
trying to expand services for the smaller and medium-sized
carriers.
Number 0299
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH remarked that he would be more concerned
if there were a competing airline in Alaska; since there isn't,
he believes [the committee] should be supportive.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Ms. Henderson whether there is a
plan for this to be a direct flight, and if not, whether there
are slots at other airports.
MS. HENDERSON offered her understanding that in case Alaska
Airlines acquires the slot, it is working on a flight plan so
that [passengers] would fly out of Anchorage, have one change in
Seattle, and then fly nonstop to Washington, D.C.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that she thinks it would be a
wonderful advantage for Alaskans if this were to come about.
Number 0458
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 2, line 7, and read:
WHEREAS Alaska Airlines best serves the public
interest in the District of Columbia airport market
with a proposal to provide the first and only service
between Anchorage and Seattle and then nonstop service
to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport;
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK offered her belief that it would be a good
market for Alaska and for people in the state who could get
direct flights from Seattle to Washington, D.C. She said she is
speaking in support because she knows how terrible it is to
change planes all the time.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she is amazed at how many
times people in her district [Wrangell] fly to Washington, D.C.
CHAIR KOHRING asked how badly Alaska Airlines wants this.
Number 0655
KIM HUTCHINSON (ph), Alaska Airlines, came forth to testify on
HJR 28. He stated that [Alaska Airlines] has made application
already, and is interested in these two slots. He noted that
the resolution helps, but he doesn't think it is vital in the
application.
CHAIR KOHRING expressed concern about the market issue and
whether it is proper for a government entity in Alaska to
attempt to dictate how it would like the market [to be].
MR. HUTCHINSON responded that he doesn't think there are any
other carriers Alaska Airlines' size that have applied for this.
Further, he said there are no other airlines that serve Alaska;
therefore, the State of Alaska wouldn't have any interest, for
example, in pushing Southwest [Airlines].
Number 0768
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report HJR 28 out of committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HJR
28 was reported from the House Transportation Standing
Committee.
SB 88-METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
CHAIR KOHRING announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to metropolitan planning
organizations and to establishment of a metropolitan planning
organization for the Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing
for an effective date."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, came forth as
sponsor of SB 88. He explained that this bill adds one member
from the House and one member from the Senate, both from the
Anchorage area, to the AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study) policy committee. The policy committee
sets up the priorities for various projects to be funded with
both state and federal funds. The rationale behind having two
members is that legislators should be at the table in setting up
these priorities, rather than having two non-elected officials
and three locally elected officials.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that from previous testimony he
came to the understanding that the AMATS board has the ability
to appoint other members if it chooses to do so. He asked
whether [AMATS] has been contacted by anyone in the legislature
requesting the addition of legislators to the board.
SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that [AMATS] has been pretty resistant
to [the legislation]. He added that [SB 88] is the formal
request.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to a resolution in the committee
packets indicating the municipal assembly opposes this bill.
She asked how this would affect areas such as Fairbanks.
SENATOR PHILLIPS responded that Fairbanks doesn't have [a board
structure like this] yet. He remarked that he doesn't know how
this would affect Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Senator Phillips why he is
introducing the bill. She said it looks as though he wants more
local control; however, the mayor of Anchorage and two assembly
members are already on the board. She mentioned the legislative
process for appropriating money to the DOT&PF (Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities) to take care of road
construction projects. She also noted that whenever a new
mayor is elected, it is by the majority of the [voters]. She
asked Senator Phillips why he doesn't think legislators have
control over these types of issues that fund DOT&PF to do the
job.
SENATOR PHILLIPS first offered his understanding that Mayor
Wuerch of Anchorage supports [SB 88]. He then stated:
The reason for it, Representative Masek, is that you
as a legislator right now represent the [Matanuska-
Susitna] area and deal directly with [DOT&PF]. ... My
particular situation is, when they change that
priority list, ... you call the commissioner [and] the
commissioner says you [have] got to go back to AMATS.
... And frankly, there's no recourse. ...
What happens at the end of this process ... [is that]
you come up with a list of things, and all they say
is, "Cut me a check; it's all or nothing." There's no
ability to change the priorities, at least [not]
directly. ... What I'm trying to do is get direct
representation from the state legislature on this
policy board so that our constituents can be heard.
And if the policy committee wants to make any changes
in the priority list, which they have numerous times,
... at least I'm totally responsible to my
constituents at that point in time.
Number 1304
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to the resolution from the
Anchorage Municipal Assembly [in the committee packets], lines
28 to 30, and she read:
WHEREAS, the action to change the AMATS process
entered into unilaterally by the State of Alaska could
endanger federal highway funding for Anchorage, which
is intended to be handled cooperatively between the
Municipality and the State;
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Senator Phillips to comment on that.
SENATOR PHILLIPS responded that in the committee packets there
should be a letter from the Federal Highway Administration
affirming that state legislators are allowed on the policy
committee. The State of Hawaii has a very similar process.
There have been arguments made against this because of the dual-
office shift by a House or Senate member. He noted that one
example of this in [Alaska] is the student loan commission.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK remarked that if this were to become law,
another concern would be how the legislators would have the
ability to participate while working in [Juneau].
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied that he doesn't think time and place
are that difficult to rearrange.
Number 1447
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Senator Phillips whether his
constituents want one thing, but the people who are doing the
planning for Anchorage don't agree with those constituents. In
addition, she asked whether he wants to be on the board in order
to have some leverage.
SENATOR PHILLIPS responded:
There is a technical committee that makes
recommendations to the policy committee, just like our
bureaucracy makes recommendations to us. ... What I'm
saying is that sometimes they make these decisions in
switching the projects and delaying the projects [and]
it's too late. ... Having a legislator who is affected
by this can bring a different perspective. If we're
going to appropriate the dollars, I want to at least
be held accountable for the actions. Right now, we're
not held accountable for the actions because there's
nothing to be accountable [for], other than giving the
money.
So, the policy [committee] makes a decision on a
particular project, constituents get mad, they beat up
the legislator that they think should be responsible,
yet I have no ability. ... We get to appropriate the
dollars in this legislation; I think we ought to have
some say about it. ... My primary concern is not to
tell them what to do. it's a complement to them or
added feature that they may not see.
Number 1628
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH remarked that he is uncomfortable with
the bill. He asked Senator Phillips what would happen if the
governor appointed two people the Senator did not like.
Furthermore, he asked whether two new people would be added the
following year.
SENATOR PHILLIPS responded that right now the legislator is not
even "on the table" and yet [the legislature] has to
appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH concurred and said he thinks that is the
job [of the legislature].
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Senator Phillips whether he had been
to any of the meetings.
SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that he has participated, but since he
has a job during the interim, he always has his staff person
attend. He noted that he has gone when the meeting has been
canceled or moved.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Senator Phillips whether, when he'd
attended, he thought the process was productive and the citizens
were being represented.
Number 1730
SENATOR PHILLIPS responded that overall he did.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI pointed out that being a participant is
currently an option.
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied that the dynamics really change when
there is a standing member of the House and the Senate sitting
on the policy committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked whether that is to the benefit of
the citizens of the municipality or to the legislature.
SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that it benefits the citizens. He
pointed out that he is not seeking to be on the policy
committee.
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where the other Anchorage
Representatives and Senators stand on this.
SENATOR PHILLIPS responded that of the nine state Senators from
the Anchorage area, eight voted for the bill. Obviously, he
said, there is some dissatisfaction on the process itself.
CHAIR KOHRING said he would like to get some direction from the
committee on whether they would like to pass the bill out.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that he would feel comfortable
moving the bill out of committee; however, he would not
recommend its passage because he has reservations about several
things. One is the makeup of the design, which says the body
has to be the one to appoint new members. The other is that
legislators already have the ability to attend those meetings
and get input from citizens.
CHAIR KOHRING noted that the bill had a subsequent committee
referral, the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that she had some reservations,
but believed it should move out.
Number 1925
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report SB 88 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 88 was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
SB 123-FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS OF RAILROAD
CHAIR KOHRING announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 123(FIN), "An Act relating to the program
of federally funded construction projects of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation."
KRISTY TIBBLES, Staff to Senator Drue Pearce, Alaska State
Legislature, came forth on behalf of Senator Pearce, sponsor of
SB 123. She stated:
Senate Bill 123 requires the Alaska Railroad
Corporation to obtain legislative approval for their
Program of Projects, which is a list of federally
funded projects required by the FTA [Federal Transit
Administration] and the Federal Highway
Administration. The committee substitute for SB 123
represents a collaborative effort with the Alaska
Railroad Corporation [ARRC], which will require
approval for major construction projects that would
impact our communities, while excluding regular
maintenance projects, minor construction and
realignment projects, and projects outside of
communities that are entirely on federal land.
Senate Bill 123 will require the ARRC board of
directors to present their Program of Projects to the
legislature on the first day of every regular session.
The Program of Projects will then be referred to both
the Senate and House finance committees for review,
and the legislature may disapprove of any project by
law during the first 60 days of the session. Failure
of the legislature to disapprove by law is approval
for the expenditure of the funds.
Senate Bill 123 was introduced in response to the
Alaska Railroad Corporation's multimillion-dollar rail
station project at the Ted Stevens International
Airport in Anchorage. Senator Pearce believes that
requiring the Alaska Railroad Corporation to obtain
legislative approval for future projects will better
ensure that those Alaskan residents affected will be
better informed and have the opportunity for a review
process in a timely manner.
Number 2062
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what changes had been made in the
[Senate] committee substitute (CS).
MS. TIBBLES responded that the original version required the
Alaska Railroad Corporation to pass a law in order to build
facilities over $10 million and for track realignment projects
over a certain amount. It has been changed so that rather than
[the corporation] passing the bill to get its projects done, it
will present its projects to [the legislature], and if anyone
disapproves, [the legislature] will have to introduce a bill to
stop the project. She added that Senator Pearce believes it
will take an outcry by the public to stop a project; however,
her intent is to have more public review.
Number 2130
JOSEPH FIELDS, Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, Transportation
Committee, testified via teleconference. He stated that [the
Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce] has been in opposition to SB 123
all along. He said they have some concerns about whether the
Alaska Railroad [Corporation] is an independent organization of
the state or is an agency. He stated:
There's probably a lot to be said about the concern
the people have over projects developing without
overview by the public, but I think in ... most of the
cases we've seen, including the airport project in
Anchorage, they've had a substantial amount of
information available for a quite a long time in the
public.
The last several months there [have] been many, many
meetings over realignment in Fairbanks. We're
concerned about that kind of a project. We're
concerned about the timing in this bill, and how long
it would take to get support for federal funding,
which is available at specific times and not available
on a scheduled (indisc.) legislature necessarily.
I believe the railroad has a good operation, and they
have responded, I think, properly to the concerns
about public notice and public information, and
they're continuing to improve their position on a
regular basis. We have a new CEO [Chief Executive
Officer] of the railroad who has a background in
operations that will be conducive to the public
knowing more about what's going on. So I would
strongly urge you to either vote against this bill or
in any way not to move it forward. The Chamber of
Commerce transportation committee ... wrote a
resolution in that regard.
Number 2195
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked Mr. Fields whether the railroad
receives any state funds for projects.
MR. FIELDS responded he doesn't believe it has received any
since first becoming a corporation of the state. He added that
he doesn't believe it has any matching funds.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said that is what he understood, and he
doesn't know why the legislature would want to bring a new
"animal into our midst when we barely can manage those animals
we have now." He said he doesn't see why this is a needed Act.
Number 2253
WENDY LINDSKOOG, Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), came forth
to testify on SB 123. She clarified that ARRC does not receive
any state funding for its matching money; it is all done though
its internal funds.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Lindskoog where the ARRC stands
on this bill.
MS. LINDSKOOG offered that if ARRC really had it's choice, it
would not like to see the legislation passed. She added that
Senator Pearce has worked closely with ARRC on this legislation,
and at this point it is a bill that ARRC can live with. She
said Senator Pearce has taken out many of the concerns in terms
of basic maintenance, maintenance facilities, repairs of
bridges, emergency repairs, rolling stock, signalization, and a
number of other crucial railroad functions. With those
exempted, this bill really deals with the "megaprojects":
facilities over $5 million and realignments over $10 million.
She noted that ARRC would like a better level of coordination
between the railroad and the legislature so that everyone is
better informed.
Number 2339
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, came
forth and stated that she understands why this bill is before
the committee. She said it is partly because of the failure of
the railroad to be as open as it should be; however, she doesn't
necessarily believe this legislation fixes that. She added that
the people she represents in Fairbanks are opposed to this.
Representative James said she thinks it would be wise if the
ARRC made a yearly presentation to the legislature on what it is
planning to do and what its parameters are. The only problem
with this, she said, is the 60-day requirement whereby [the
legislature] can say no to the project.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked when ARRC gets the permission [to do
a project]. She said there was some indication this may be a
deterrent for getting federal money for different projects. She
pointed out that she agrees that the railroad has an obligation
to keep the communities fully informed; however, she thinks
those decisions should be made at the local level. She added
that she would not want to wait a whole year if something came
up. She noted that she has had several pieces of legislation
that authorize delineation of a [rail] corridor from Fairbanks
to the Seward Peninsula.
TAPE 01-32, SIDE B
[A short section was indiscernible due to tape malfunction.]
Number 2441
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that he shares Representative James'
sentiments, and is not sure [the legislature] needs to rush the
passage of this legislation. He stated that he would call
having the legislature coming in and getting involved in this
process "micromanagement." He noted that he would prefer a
recommendation by the legislature to ARRC that it be more
cognizant of the concerns of the public.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO, Alaska State Legislature, came
forth and stated that there have been several good points
brought up in the testimony. He noted that [Mr. Fields] had
said there has been a tremendous amount of information that has
been available for a while. Representative Halcro remarked that
information is good, but to have the ability to effect change is
a separate issue. He remarked that this project is particularly
frustrating for him. He shared:
I was elected in November of 1998. The next month, in
December, I got an invitation to join former Governor
Sheffield for lunch to talk about railroad issues,
because at that time I was vice chair of the [House]
Transportation Committee through our organization
meeting.
So I had lunch with [former] Governor Sheffield one
afternoon, and we talked about a wide range of things,
and then the subject came up of this airport rail
station. ... And I said to him, ... "Governor, I think
this is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever
heard." I said, "I have spent my entire life working
at the Anchorage International Airport, ... and I see
no reason why you should spend $28 million in
taxpayers' money building this thing. It's not going
to be used ... and it's going to take up needed
space."
And he said, "No, no, no. 8,000 people work at the
Anchorage airport; people are going to love this
thing; it's going to be great."
And I said to him, "OK, so where are you now?"
And he said, "Well, right now we're in the feasibility
study. We're going to get a contract to create this
feasibility study, and then we're going to make a
determination from there."
And I said, "Governor, if the feasibility study comes
back and it shows that this is a questionable value
and will be of questionable use, what is your plan?"
And he said, "Well, we're going to consider that." He
certainly didn't tell me that if the report came back
and said that this project would be underutilized and
not needed ... it wouldn't be built; he didn't really
give a commitment.
Number 2284
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO continued:
... Seven months later, in July of 1999, Northern
Economics released their market analysis, which is a
fairly lengthy piece of information. Part of my
discussion at lunch with Governor Sheffield was his
assertion that 8,000 people work at the airport. And
I said, "You're absolutely right, Governor: I'm one
of them. But I don't work at the terminal. So tell
me, if I'm going to take this train to the airport and
I get to the terminal, how do I get to my office,
which is about a mile and a half from the terminal?"
... Well, he didn't have an answer.
So when the study came out in July of 1999, certainly,
a number of my concerns that I voiced to former
Governor Sheffield were put in print. For instance,
Mr. Chair, a quote here, "The consultant team does not
think a study that was done in 1996 or data from the
People Mover justify a targeted commuter service for
airport employees in the near future. Airport
employees travel to and from the airport at different
times and live in many different areas, suggesting
that ridership on any commuter line would be low at
any given point in time" - thus proving my assertion
at lunch that this wouldn't be used.
Number 2206
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO continued:
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, about four years ago
People Mover reinstated service to the airport, and
everybody thought it would be wonderful - the tourists
will use it, the employees will use it. Well, that
route in the Anchorage People Mover service has the
lowest ridership of any route in the People Mover
service. According to the report, [it] proves that
mass transit is not conducive to those that work at
the airport. ...
I sent a two-page letter addressed on my company
letterhead to the company that put out this proposal
and I gave them my comments. I raised many questions,
saying that this market analysis raises more questions
than it gives you answers. ... If anything, this
document says that this $28 million project is a waste
of money and will not be used. I submitted written
comment. Nothing happened, [and the] project was
approved and moved forward.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO continued:
So we have now, underway, a project that's going to
build a $28 million facility at the Ted Stevens
International Airport that, even by their own
admission, railroad officials can't tell you how
they're going to utilize. A little over a year ago at
this very table, when I sat where you sit now, Mr.
Chair, I had an overview on this proposal. And I had
a representative from the railroad sitting in this
very chair, and I looked down the table at him and I
said, "Your report here says that by the year 2004,
80,000 local residents are going to use this train to
get to the airport. Where are these people going to
come from?" And you know what his answer was, Mr.
Chair? "I don't know."
... Once again, his answers shed no more light on the
feasibility of this ... project than this report, and
I think it highlighted the frustration that with the
$28 million taxpayer project, the legislature had no
oversight. ... My constituents, this summer, came to
me and complained [and] said, "Why are we building
this?" You know what my response was? "Well, I sent
a pretty tersely written letter when they had public
comment period." ...
Certainly, with our congressional representation and
the money that's available for transportation
projects, the railroad is going to have access to all
kinds of dollars. In my community, my district is not
the last that will have one of these projects built
within the boundaries. And I think it's completely
fair for the legislature to have the ability to say,
"Wait a minute, ... have you done your homework?"
... I wrote a ... piece in the Anchorage Daily News -
it was published, actually, on January 1 this year -
that outlined how I thought that this project was
poorly conceived and a waste of money. I got an e-
mail from a gentleman who had just retired from the
Department of Transportation, who said that while they
were shuffling this project through the public process
through the permitting process, ... he has never seen
anything like it in his entire career at [DOT&PF]. He
said there was no public input. He said this thing
was on the fast track from day one.
Number 2062
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO went on to say:
Now, after ... the main focus of the project has
already been approved and is proceeding forward, ...
the railroad is talking about realigning tracks that
approach the airport - to make accommodations for
these rail cars. Now, what you have is suddenly a
project that just at the airport is expanding to area
neighborhoods, and the neighbors themselves say they
feel that they don't have any say in the matter. And
so I think there is a huge gap between ... the
railroad having the ability to proceed on a project,
... because it's completely [federally funded], and
the mandate that they have some kind of legislative
approval.
... Certainly, I think there's been a great deal of
compromise that's gone on. And I think the bill now
allows us to be defensive rather than offensive. ...
I don't think that this is going to hinder the
railroad's ability to come up with a list of capital
improvement projects and fund those projects. ... I
think that this can work within the timeframe that the
railroad needs, and I don't think it's too much to
ask.
Number 1857
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that he needs to hear more justifying
reasons from the sponsor and those who advocate this
legislation.
SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, Alaska State Legislature, came forth as
sponsor of SB 123. She stated:
Back when the transfer of the railroad from the
federal government to the state government took place,
the folks in the legislature at the time worked to
make the railroad as autonomous as possible. We have
seen some good things come of that. Those of us who
have been in the legislature for a long time have seen
some things that perhaps weren't so great. I will
remind you that this is an asset that's owned by all
the people of the state. Each of you are shareholders
in the Alaska Railroad, ... in their successes and
their less stellar moments.
... The railroad is not under the Executive Budget
Act. ... It is the most autonomous of the corporations
of the state. I personally believe that over the
years the railroad has used ... its unique status to
its advantage. ... I can't fault them for that, but I
do know that at times, over the years, when it serves
them well to be state agencies - i.e., not having to
pay property taxes in the local communities and not
having to go through some of the processes as a
private entity would do - they certainly put on that
public hat and (indisc.) it down the road of not
paying taxes. On the other hand, when it has behooved
them to be private entities - i.e., when they wanted
to hold their rates and fees secret and not even share
them with the legislature - they've ridden that horse.
... I don't blame them for any of that, but I do
question some of the decisions that have been made in
terms of the expansion in buildings that have been
done at the railroad. Over the years, there have been
a number of audits done [on the] previous chairman of
the railroad corporation, previous presidents of the
railroad, previous board members. But we've had a
number of times where the legislature has questioned
some the buildings [and] some of the business
practices of the railroad, and our auditors have found
that, indeed, we had good reason to question those
efforts.
Number 1702
SENATOR PEARCE continued, stating:
... Let me come to the project at hand, that being the
Anchorage airport project. We spent upwards of $28
million, with another perhaps $18 million to go to
elevate the rail through my district to get to this
terminal - which at present isn't going to attach to
anything because the airport project has its own
problems - ... without ever having a single hearing in
the state of Alaska where Alaskans could say whether
or not they wanted this project - not at the state
level, not at the local level. But these are federal
dollars. What the bill calls for [is] the railroad
has to present to the federal government each year a
Program for Progress. It's much like the STIP
[Statewide Transportation Improvement Program] in a
lot of respects.
We're asking that that Program of Progress be brought
to the legislature each year so the federally funded
projects, most of which have to be matched ... by the
railroad, which is state money, ... are approved
unless the legislature actually takes action by law to
disapprove the project. ... [Therefore], ... there is
someplace in the state where Alaskans who believe that
a project should not go forward have an opportunity to
an elected body to say so, if it is a federally funded
project.
I believe in the future that the railroad may well
have to come to the legislature for matching funds on
some of their projects anyway, because some of the
things they're looking at in the future are going to
cost tens and even hundreds of millions [of] dollars.
... They've been lucky in that they've been able to
match all of the projects out of their cash flow.
That doesn't mean that's not state funds. I believe
that $26, $28 million for this terminal - with an
addition [of] perhaps as much as $18 [million] taken
out of the revenue stream - could definitely have been
used better in other places. And I think the
legislature would have acted, frankly, on this
terminal project had we had an opportunity.
... They got the money; then they did a marketing
analysis. The marketing analysis, as Representative
Halcro said, is full of holes. ... We would have been
better off to build a port facility in one of
Representative Kookesh's cities than we are to build a
hole in the ground. ... I've worked with the railroad.
I'm not going to sit here and say that they like the
bill, because obviously they'd rather continue doing
business as they always have. On the other hand, they
do admit that this project was ill-conceived and that
there was no real process whereby anybody in Alaska
ever got to say, "We don't want this." ...
Number 1489
SENATOR PEARCE continued:
This bill does not allow one person to stop a project,
because you have to pass a law. You've got to have 21
[Representatives] on this side, 11 [Senators] on our
side, and [the] governor - who wouldn't veto it -
before you could ever actually stop a project. So,
it's a huge hurdle to go over, but it will force them
to come before us.
And, Mr. Chairman, in terms of a memorandum of
agreement, you can't really do one of those with the
legislature. And because we have two board members
that are appointed by the governor and our
commissioners ... allowed this project to go forward,
I don't think a memorandum of agreement would be worth
its weight in anything.
Furthermore, I believe this is a public corporation,
and somewhere along the way their major projects that
are using federal funds should have to come to an
elected body for approval. This is one that fell
through the cracks.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH remarked that he seems to hear two
different stories. He said he thought the person from the
railroad had said that only projects above a certain dollar mark
would come to the legislature, while Senator Pearce had said all
the projects would.
SENATOR PEARCE responded that ARRC brings the program to [the
legislature]; it is a federal document, but [the legislature]
can only approve those over a certain amount.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that she could understand where
Senator Pearce is coming from. She asked whether this bill
would only allow the legislative body to get involved if they
disagreed with the projects. She said it is not a bill that is
meant to go over every project, and there are hardly any
projects in the past that have had problems.
SENATOR PEARCE responded that over the years there have been a
number of projects [with problems].
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK remarked that the legislature has not taken
action on anything in the past. This would provide a vehicle to
do so if there were troubles. She added that the federal budget
comes out in the late fall; therefore, no project would be
deterred because of the federal funding mechanism as the bill is
written.
SENATOR PEARCE replied that this treats these projects the same
as [the legislature] treats federal highway and airport projects
in the budget. She noted that she couldn't find a project in
[the federal] program where [the legislature] would have stopped
construction.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that based on those comments, she
thinks the intent of this bill is something that is needed,
especially with the state's growth.
Number 1167
EILEEN REILLY, Alaska Railroad Corporation, testified via
teleconference. She stated:
This [legislation] is something the railroad can live
with, and I think Senator Pearce characterized
correctly that it is probably something we'd rather
not live with, but we certainly could. The exemptions
are really important. There are some projects that we
go into preliminary engineering without having the
construction dollars that we phase in. When we see
our federal funds in October, we build that following
season. So it is important for us, and it would have
an impact [to] not [be] able to go into construction
until we have those construction dollars approved in
October, have the legislature go through their
process, and wait 60 days.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH explained some of his concerns. First,
he doesn't think either this legislature or ARRC needs another
layer of bureaucracy. Second, he is concerned about the federal
funding. And third, he is concerned that [the committee] hasn't
heard from the railroad board; at the same time, however, he
believes [the legislature] needs to develop a relationship with
ARRC.
Number 0995
CHAIR KOHRING concurred with Representative Kookesh and stated
that he thinks this is an extra layer of bureaucracy. He added
that he thinks [the legislature] is rushing into this, and is
"nipping at the heels" of the Executive Budget Act, which could
lead to micromanaging.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK remarked that this bill does apply to the
exemption of ongoing projects. She stated that she thinks it is
good policy for legislative leaders to ensure these huge
projects, which may have a big impact on people in the state.
She added that she doesn't see this as holding up any projects
[for ARRC]. Rather, it is giving the legislative body the
ability to act upon projects when and if needed.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI concurred. He stated that there is a lack
of public oversight in a public entity.
Number 0718
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSSB 123(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 123(FIN) was
reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
HB 241-RAIL AND UTILITY CORRIDOR TO CANADA
CHAIR KOHRING announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 241, "An Act relating to a railroad utility
corridor for extension of the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to
extension of the Alaska Railroad to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,
Canada."
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska
State Legislature, came forth on behalf of Representative James,
sponsor of HB 241. He stated:
Last legislative session, HJR 51 was passed, which ...
was a resolution calling for the connection between
the Lower 48 and Alaska by railroad. It would allow
for tracks to go between, basically, Eielson Air Force
base, where they are now, and Fort Nelson, B.C.
[British Columbia].
This is something that Representative James has really
believed in for a long time. In fact, the dream of
having what we call the Last Transcontinental Railroad
has been around since the Alaska Railroad was first
constructed before the Second World War. And even at
the turn of the century there was talk of building
this railroad. It seems that today's infrastructure
is a huge issue for building Alaska's economy.
... HB 241 will follow up on the resolution by
actually having a piece of legislation that would
basically authorize the Alaska Railroad to extend
tracks from Eielson. And originally the idea was to
go to the Canadian border. But there being nothing
there but black spruce and lichen, it would authorize
it to go all the way to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,
the idea being that the White Pass Railroad, which
connects Skagway with Carcross ... pointed out that
the White Pass Railroad is really set up to expand
from a narrow gauge to a standard gauge at some point
in time in the future, and over the last few years the
railroad has proved very successful.
At first, it just was back and forth on the dock with
a little engine after it shut down when the mines
closed down the Yukon. Then they started doing
tourist runs a little bit up, and then they went to
the Pass, and now they are going all the way to
Carcross. ... So, some point in time in the future
with a corridor there, there could be a connection
right down to the port at Skagway, which could be a
big benefit for building the gas line, for example, or
the missile defense program.
We also heard yesterday ... about a proposal to have
these big "super servers" up on the North Slope that
would use natural gas, and they would have to have a
fiber-optic cable that would come down. ... Well, part
of this plan is to have a railroad utility corridor
with fiber-optic cable going all the way down along
it.
Number 0402
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that she is excited about this
and thinks this will help Alaska in the long run. She said it
would open up areas for economic development, especially in the
mining area along the corridor where there are many minerals.
CHAIR KOHRING concurred with Representative Wilson.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to the fiscal note and read, "We
assume the State land could be acquired for no cost." She
asked, if there were any R.S. 2477 trails or other access
routes, whether they would be protected.
Number 0288
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that there is the EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) procedure in getting anything
done. If there is an R.S. 2477 there to vacate, it would be a
decision made by the state, not the railroad. The only time
there would be a problem would be if [the corridor] were going
the same direction as the railroad; however, it is right down
the highway. Had there been [a problem], she surmised that it
would be negotiated according to the circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether the R.S. 2477s and other
access routes are protected for public access.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she thinks they are
automatically protected by the law. They would only be changed
through some legal method, with public input.
TAPE 01-33, SIDE A
Number 0025
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that it is a good possibility that
if there is a connection from Alaska to the North American rail
system, and if the rail system is moved through the Seward
Peninsula near Nome and has a deep-water port in Norton Sound,
[Alaska] could be a "throughput" for materials from Asia to
Canada and the Lower 48; it would be easier, with the water
transportation, to Alaska than to Seattle.
CHAIR KOHRING asked whether there is any opposition in Canada to
the railroad extension.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that she is not aware of any.
She has met with people in Vancouver, B.C.; Grand Perry (ph);
and Calgary. Everyone is excited.
CHAIR KOHRING asked whether the closest point of the railroad in
Canada to Alaska is Fort Nelson.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that Fort Nelson is one of the
areas. She added that [Alaska] has not had any intense
relationships with the First Nations people.
Number 0298
CHAIR KOHRING asked, "Where do we go from here, assuming that
this passes the legislature?"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that this just opens the door for
the railroad to something in the event that something is ready
to be done. She noted that U.S. Senator Murkowski passed
legislation last year that authorized a bilateral commission of
12 U.S. people and 12 Canadian people. The U.S. is just waiting
for Canada to pass the same sort of legislation in its federal
government. When that happens, there will be the appointment of
the 24 people, a $6 million fiscal note from the U.S., and
hopefully a similar fiscal note from the Canadians. This
committee will be appointed to hire the folks needed to do the
feasibility study.
CHAIR KOHRING asked what the distance in Alaska would be in
comparison to that in Canada.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that it would be about 270 miles;
it would be a lot farther on the Canadian side. Altogether, it
is about 1,200 miles.
Number 0446
CHAIR KOHRING asked who pays what.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she is not sure.
CHAIR KOHRING suggested privatizing the Alaskan leg of the
railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks that is a good possibility.
Number 0521
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report HB 241 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 241 was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:59
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|